Tuesday, March 05, 2013

trademark infringement as literal falsity

CTI, doing business as Citadel, competes with EMS in the market
for composite wrap products used to repair leaking or corroded piping
systems—Citadel sells Diamond Wrap and EMS now sells I-Wrap, though it used to distribute Diamond
Wrap.Citadel alleged that EMS’s
predecessor removed references to Citadel from advertising materials for
Diamond Wrap, reverse engineered Diamond Wrap, then converted users.Citadel asserted various claims, and moved
for partial summary judgment on its Lanham Act literally false
advertising/Oklahoma Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims.

Citadel has a registered trademark for Diamond Wrap; EMS’s
predecessor used several marketing materials referring to “EFS’s Diamond Wrap”
instead of “Citadel’s Diamond Wrap,” which a representative admitted was
literally false and infringed the mark.EMS conceded the violations (not clear on why it conceded materiality),
but argued that summary judgment was inapproprate because the misrepresentations
weren’t intentional or malicious.But
intent isn’t a required element of either ODTPA or the Lanham Act, so Citadel
was entitled to summary judgment on liability for these claims.Citadel acknowledged that intent is a factor
in assessing likely confusion, though.

Comment: weird.Just
shows how disconnecting trademark from false advertising has led to strange
doctrinal follies; there’s no reason this isn’t a straight-up trademark case,
other than the frolic and detour of literal v. implied falsity in 43(a)(1)(B)
cases.

Creative Commons/disclaimer

Text on this blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. Pictures and works quoted may be subject to other parties' copyrights.
I speak for myself. On this blog, I do not and cannot speak for Georgetown Law, the Organization for Transformative Works and/or AO3.